I see this talked about fairly frequently in a few places, though it's not something players at my LGS really bring up. Accurately evaluating a deck feels like it would have to examine a lot of different metrics: mana base, consistency, speed, individual card strength, etc. and for some decks that are not even trying to actually win, I'm not sure what a number would even mean. I get that the rating is supposed to be a quick shorthand to gauge relative deck power levels, so a deep analysis is not intended and I will assume that how the player pilots the deck is a metric baked into the number. Even so, I still have some questions.
Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What does it mean for a deck to be a 1, a 5, or a 10? What do those decks tend to look like?
Where do the commander precons tend to fall on the scale?
I have a real hard time grasping what the 1-3 end would look like because I don't think those decks would attract much attention or would otherwise be improved/dismantled quickly.
In my opinion, I feel like speed* and individual card power level are the more important metrics to look at, though if a deck is capable of winning immediately off of some combination of cards, that's also very important. But there are a lot of factors at play that it feels hard to pin things down into a single number.
*I think I'm referring to how soon opposing decks must be ready to interact with the deck or otherwise lose to it.
I don't know if I fully understand your question, as I haven't seen nor heard discussions about a 1-10 rating system. Maybe the places you see this talked about is a place better suited for this question.
That being said, if I were forced to rate decks 1-10:
What does it mean for a deck to be a 1, a 5, or a 10? What do those decks tend to look like?
For me to rate a deck a "1" I'd have to consider it to be completely janky, use almost entirely cards that are inefficient or less efficient than other versions, and have no theme at all or a theme that does not lead to a cohesive game plan. For example, a artist-tribal deck.
For me to rate a deck a "5", I'd likely look for decks that are able to win, but are not fully optimized for speed or power. Decks that, when left alone, can end a game, but cannot do so quickly and have trouble when interrupted.
For me to rate a deck a "10", I'd expect a deck that can consistently win in early turns (3, 4, 5, or 6) and be able to do so while combating responses from opponents.
Where do the commander precons tend to fall on the scale?
The precons are not all built equally. My favorites, like Meren of Clan Nel Toth, can be as high as 7-8, while some of my least favorite, like Zedruu the Greathearted I'd rank somewhere around 4-5.
I have a real hard time grasping what the 1-3 end would look like because I don't think those decks would attract much attention or would otherwise be improved/dismantled quickly.
While true, it is pretty common for players from different skillsets and card pools to come together to play EDH. Personally, I carry around 10 decks with me at any given time, and they range significantly in power level, so that I can make sure I am playing a deck that is consistent with the power of the decks I'm facing. I don't find it much fun to play one of my most competitive decks when my opponents are brand new to EDH and are either playing whatever 100 cards they could find of the same color or a precon.
As someone who only brews for the topmost range of numbers, the contrast between one of my brews and the average deck is fairly stark. It's more of a bell curve; most decks are somewhere between 4 and 7.
There really isn't much difference between a 1 and a 3; those decks are all bad and don't stand a chance at even a casual table. Think 99-card piles of commons, most unmodified precons, etc.
A 4 or a 5 has some modification (or is a Breya, Daretti, or Meren precon) and has some thought and synergy put into it, but is lacking a lot of pieces to function effectively.
A 6-7 is a consistent deck with decent card choices, but its curve will still be too high and its mana base will be shaky. It'll have synergies, maybe an awkward infinite combo, but it won't reliably be able to combo early.
An 8 is a tuned deck that's missing some (normally higher-end) enablers. Like imagine a tuned Breya deck but without Transmute Artifact, Imperial Seal, Mox Diamond, etc. It will also be missing a few cheap card selection or interaction spells and have a couple unnecessary clunkers, since that's where most EDH deckbuilders go wrong. An 8 will win/lock out the game on or shortly before turn 6 through disruption.
9 and 10 are very close in power level; these are optimized decks with few to no poor card choices. These will win on or before turn 5 every game even through a bit of disruption. Color identity (and the limitations provided thereby) is a major factor here, so is commander choice. A large percentage of commanders can't even be optimized to a 9. 10's normally use Tymna, Thrasios, Tasigur, Breya, Derevi, Zur, or Kess.
If I had to make a 1-10 scale it would look something like this:
1-3: This would be jank tier. The decks of this calibur are all over the place and don't have very cohesive strategy. At best, they'll have some card interactions but they don't flow together. Each of it's interactions feel separate from the rest of the deck. Also, very inconsistent. Sometimes they'll do okay but a lot of the time, they'll be floundering, trying to pull something together.
4-5: At this point the deck has a basic game plan. However, that's all it is. The deck is really just a skeleton of what it could be. It has yet to be really put through the grinder and still contains some less than effective stuff.
6-7: Here, the deck has been modified, tuned a little bit, had some of it's chaff removed and been tested in game play. These decks have a game plan and a few ways to accomplish it. You'll see some consistency issues. At times the deck will preform better in some games than others. However, the deck is consistent enough to work even if it isn't the most effective or efficient just yet.
8: The broadest range of decks, IMHO. At this point, the decks are pretty consistent, have great and effective card choices and several different plans on how to execute their endgame. They have been tuned and been through quite a few games. May still have some pet cards thrown in. Deck of this level can be several steps above casual or just below the more competitive scene.
9-10: At this point, the deck is of the competitive level. They have some of, if not all of, the best card choices and have been thoroughly tested to run like a well oiled machine. They play well consistently and will win if you don't disrupt them. THe only difference between a 9 and a 10 are how much of the best options do they contain.
I think it's interesting how winning quickly seems to be an important criteria for some people. If a deck wins consistently, why does it matter how quickly it does it?
In edh "power rankings" become a little more muddle due to the multiplayer nature. If you have 3 decks that normally would be called tier 1 in other formats and one boar tribal. The boar tribal on paper looks much worse than the turn 3 ad nauseum decks but because it is so bad other players simply cannot afford to interact with the deck because its' cards are so bad that using removal puts faster decks behind in tempo and cards against other tier 1 decks so much that they most likely lose.
Winning quickly means the decks with a more stable (sometimes less "spontaneous") win-condition will be less likely to take over. Sometimes the deck with higher inevitability is considered less competitive when up against a deck with a faster average victory-turn.
I think it's interesting how winning quickly seems to be an important criteria for some people. If a deck wins consistently, why does it matter how quickly it does it?
How quickly a deck can goldfish is a good indicator of its power level because other decks must be able to interact with it by that point.
A fiercely tuned competitive deck and a hobbling casual deck should probably not be in the same game. I've been in a game where I cast a Burnished Hart and then the game was over. This sort of mismatch can and should be avoided if possible.
I think saying a deck needs to win quickly to be powerful isn't completely true - instead I would say that a high tier deck needs to be able to implement its game plan quickly - you either need to be able to win quickly, or to be in a position to prevent others from winning quickly if your deck is build around longer games. For an all in combo deck, you will indeed be aiming for winning quickly, but for a control deck, that means reliably having the resources - mana and cards - to keep others from winning pretty early on, while for a stax deck that means getting some disruption - such as lock effects or key hatebears - active within the first few turns, and so on. If you can't do this pretty early in the game, then your deck is unlikely to consistently perform well compared to those decks that can - it's no good having amazing turn 6 plays if there is no turn 6.
Any deck can have a plan. Any deck can try to implement a plan. But being able to actually pull it off is another story. Being able to pull it off consistently is an entire volume to itself. Different strategies call for different things, as pointed out.
Speed is relative but consistency is forever, IMHO.
This is my opinion, but rating decks based on power level seems extremely arbitrary. Decks operate differently in different groups, even if you have 4 or 5 groups that "aren't cutthroat" for example, a deck is going to perform differently in each one based on meta and different play-styles alone.
Trying to come up with overarching criteria is similar, like speed. Speed =/= power, at all. Some fast decks are fragile, fizzle hard, have a hard time against ______ decks. Stax decks can be very powerful in some metas, but are usually slow and grinding.
Mana curve is a good thing to examine, but again, a mono-white weenie Odric deck is going to have a much lower curve than a Prime-Speaker ramp deck, but it's going to be generally much less effective in many cases.
The best you could probably do is rank decks in a specific meta, and even then decks are going to be biased one way or another based on sample size and the players skill-level with that deck, and it will also depend on the other types and optimization levels of other decks in the group.
In other words, an accurate 1-10 scale isn't realistic across commander.
I think saying a deck needs to win quickly to be powerful isn't completely true - instead I would say that a high tier deck needs to be able to implement its game plan quickly - you either need to be able to win quickly, or to be in a position to prevent others from winning quickly if your deck is build around longer games. For an all in combo deck, you will indeed be aiming for winning quickly, but for a control deck, that means reliably having the resources - mana and cards - to keep others from winning pretty early on...If you can't do this pretty early in the game, then your deck is unlikely to consistently perform well compared to those decks that can - it's no good having amazing turn 6 plays if there is no turn 6.
I certainly don't mean to suggest that a deck needs to win quickly to be powerful, but if a deck can win quickly (essentially requiring early interaction to prevent it from doing so) then it is.
Certainly it's important for decks to be able to interact early beyond merely setting up its own plan, but if a deck is poised to threaten victory during the earlier turns of a game, it is powerful.
I think the reason I'm focusing on speed more than inevitability is this. If a deck has a good counter to a slow/control deck in it, it has plenty of time to draw into that interaction and set up the counter play. If a deck has some way to beat a fast deck, it has to luck into drawing it and potentially stunt its own development in order to keep the threat from happening. And if it doesn't know how fast the deck is, naturally developing its own board on time won't leave the counterplay option available on that surprise early turn.
In other words, an accurate 1-10 scale isn't realistic across commander.
I totally agree. There are too many factors for it to make sense. I just see it used in certain places and was hoping to understand what the ratings that were used were based on.
I've always had a problem with the mindset that how quickly a deck can goldfish determines its power level - that may work for combo or aggro, but it just isn't a practical way to evaluate control, especially because control is the one most likely to throw a monkey wrench into the combo or aggro deck's plan. A control deck can afford to have a slower wincon because it is disrupting or even stealing the other players' wincons. As a non-Commander example - remember cascade-Restore Balance? I don't know if anyone still plays it, but I remember some really gross games. That deck takes a long time to assemble enough borderposts and drop March of the Machines, but the fact that it can repeatedly wipe all lands and creatures as early as turn two means it is very powerful.
And, as others stated, the multiplayer politics override normal deck strength evaluations. Become the threat, and everyone else may gang up on you. I believe a moderately strong deck in the hands of someone who knows how to play a table will usually outperform a super powerful deck if its controller is too aggressive. Maybe not the first game or even the second, but if you play with the same group, they will start targeting you turn one of every game. It's tough to win an uphill battle. Sure, there are decks that can combo out on turn 3-5, but the group can adjust to that, too. Just wait till you face three blue mages all loaded up with counterspells.
Largely, I don't find a rating system feasible - there are so many variables, and an arbitrary number is just too much a matter of opinion. Not that I'm opposed - it would be great to sit down at a table and ask what power level we're all playing at to get a nice, evenly matched game. I just don't think it's possible.
Is the scale linear or logarithmic?
What does it mean for a deck to be a 1, a 5, or a 10? What do those decks tend to look like?
Where do the commander precons tend to fall on the scale?
I have a real hard time grasping what the 1-3 end would look like because I don't think those decks would attract much attention or would otherwise be improved/dismantled quickly.
In my opinion, I feel like speed* and individual card power level are the more important metrics to look at, though if a deck is capable of winning immediately off of some combination of cards, that's also very important. But there are a lot of factors at play that it feels hard to pin things down into a single number.
*I think I'm referring to how soon opposing decks must be ready to interact with the deck or otherwise lose to it.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
That being said, if I were forced to rate decks 1-10:
Linear, or else it wouldn't really have a true function. On USER'S scale from 1-10, where is the deck in terms of...power?
For me to rate a deck a "1" I'd have to consider it to be completely janky, use almost entirely cards that are inefficient or less efficient than other versions, and have no theme at all or a theme that does not lead to a cohesive game plan. For example, a artist-tribal deck.
For me to rate a deck a "5", I'd likely look for decks that are able to win, but are not fully optimized for speed or power. Decks that, when left alone, can end a game, but cannot do so quickly and have trouble when interrupted.
For me to rate a deck a "10", I'd expect a deck that can consistently win in early turns (3, 4, 5, or 6) and be able to do so while combating responses from opponents.
The precons are not all built equally. My favorites, like Meren of Clan Nel Toth, can be as high as 7-8, while some of my least favorite, like Zedruu the Greathearted I'd rank somewhere around 4-5.
While true, it is pretty common for players from different skillsets and card pools to come together to play EDH. Personally, I carry around 10 decks with me at any given time, and they range significantly in power level, so that I can make sure I am playing a deck that is consistent with the power of the decks I'm facing. I don't find it much fun to play one of my most competitive decks when my opponents are brand new to EDH and are either playing whatever 100 cards they could find of the same color or a precon.
Currently Playing:
Multiplayer EDH Lists (click italics for a link to the thread!)
[Primer] Lord of Tresserhorn - Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do[Primer] Roon of the Hidden Realm - Rhino Blink
5 Color Tribal Guide (Slivers, Atogs, Allies, Spirits)
Also Playing (most decklists can be found on my profile)
MarathGeistKamahlGrenzoBolasThassaGitrog
PiratesZurVial Smasher&ThrasiosYennettJhoira(cEDH)Strix(Pauper)
Legacy: Maverick
Modern:
Melira PodRIP 1/19/15GWHatebearsThere really isn't much difference between a 1 and a 3; those decks are all bad and don't stand a chance at even a casual table. Think 99-card piles of commons, most unmodified precons, etc.
A 4 or a 5 has some modification (or is a Breya, Daretti, or Meren precon) and has some thought and synergy put into it, but is lacking a lot of pieces to function effectively.
A 6-7 is a consistent deck with decent card choices, but its curve will still be too high and its mana base will be shaky. It'll have synergies, maybe an awkward infinite combo, but it won't reliably be able to combo early.
An 8 is a tuned deck that's missing some (normally higher-end) enablers. Like imagine a tuned Breya deck but without Transmute Artifact, Imperial Seal, Mox Diamond, etc. It will also be missing a few cheap card selection or interaction spells and have a couple unnecessary clunkers, since that's where most EDH deckbuilders go wrong. An 8 will win/lock out the game on or shortly before turn 6 through disruption.
9 and 10 are very close in power level; these are optimized decks with few to no poor card choices. These will win on or before turn 5 every game even through a bit of disruption. Color identity (and the limitations provided thereby) is a major factor here, so is commander choice. A large percentage of commanders can't even be optimized to a 9. 10's normally use Tymna, Thrasios, Tasigur, Breya, Derevi, Zur, or Kess.
Check out my competitive Ezuri, Claw of Progress primer!
1-3: This would be jank tier. The decks of this calibur are all over the place and don't have very cohesive strategy. At best, they'll have some card interactions but they don't flow together. Each of it's interactions feel separate from the rest of the deck. Also, very inconsistent. Sometimes they'll do okay but a lot of the time, they'll be floundering, trying to pull something together.
4-5: At this point the deck has a basic game plan. However, that's all it is. The deck is really just a skeleton of what it could be. It has yet to be really put through the grinder and still contains some less than effective stuff.
6-7: Here, the deck has been modified, tuned a little bit, had some of it's chaff removed and been tested in game play. These decks have a game plan and a few ways to accomplish it. You'll see some consistency issues. At times the deck will preform better in some games than others. However, the deck is consistent enough to work even if it isn't the most effective or efficient just yet.
8: The broadest range of decks, IMHO. At this point, the decks are pretty consistent, have great and effective card choices and several different plans on how to execute their endgame. They have been tuned and been through quite a few games. May still have some pet cards thrown in. Deck of this level can be several steps above casual or just below the more competitive scene.
9-10: At this point, the deck is of the competitive level. They have some of, if not all of, the best card choices and have been thoroughly tested to run like a well oiled machine. They play well consistently and will win if you don't disrupt them. THe only difference between a 9 and a 10 are how much of the best options do they contain.
That's my general view point for such a scale.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
A fiercely tuned competitive deck and a hobbling casual deck should probably not be in the same game. I've been in a game where I cast a Burnished Hart and then the game was over. This sort of mismatch can and should be avoided if possible.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Speed is relative but consistency is forever, IMHO.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
Trying to come up with overarching criteria is similar, like speed. Speed =/= power, at all. Some fast decks are fragile, fizzle hard, have a hard time against ______ decks. Stax decks can be very powerful in some metas, but are usually slow and grinding.
Mana curve is a good thing to examine, but again, a mono-white weenie Odric deck is going to have a much lower curve than a Prime-Speaker ramp deck, but it's going to be generally much less effective in many cases.
The best you could probably do is rank decks in a specific meta, and even then decks are going to be biased one way or another based on sample size and the players skill-level with that deck, and it will also depend on the other types and optimization levels of other decks in the group.
In other words, an accurate 1-10 scale isn't realistic across commander.
Certainly it's important for decks to be able to interact early beyond merely setting up its own plan, but if a deck is poised to threaten victory during the earlier turns of a game, it is powerful.
I think the reason I'm focusing on speed more than inevitability is this. If a deck has a good counter to a slow/control deck in it, it has plenty of time to draw into that interaction and set up the counter play. If a deck has some way to beat a fast deck, it has to luck into drawing it and potentially stunt its own development in order to keep the threat from happening. And if it doesn't know how fast the deck is, naturally developing its own board on time won't leave the counterplay option available on that surprise early turn. I totally agree. There are too many factors for it to make sense. I just see it used in certain places and was hoping to understand what the ratings that were used were based on.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
And, as others stated, the multiplayer politics override normal deck strength evaluations. Become the threat, and everyone else may gang up on you. I believe a moderately strong deck in the hands of someone who knows how to play a table will usually outperform a super powerful deck if its controller is too aggressive. Maybe not the first game or even the second, but if you play with the same group, they will start targeting you turn one of every game. It's tough to win an uphill battle. Sure, there are decks that can combo out on turn 3-5, but the group can adjust to that, too. Just wait till you face three blue mages all loaded up with counterspells.
Largely, I don't find a rating system feasible - there are so many variables, and an arbitrary number is just too much a matter of opinion. Not that I'm opposed - it would be great to sit down at a table and ask what power level we're all playing at to get a nice, evenly matched game. I just don't think it's possible.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter